Natasha Brown
CILEx Lawyer
Email | Call | LinkedIn
Get Started Online with Natasha
Natasha advises on all areas of family law including divorce, financial remedy, private children law matters and Family Law Act proceedings.
Natasha has worked in private family law since 2010. Following five years of concurrent study and three and a half years of qualifying employment exclusively in family law, Natasha completed her academic studies with the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives in April 2020 and qualified as a Chartered Legal Executive in June 2021.
Natasha has a particular interest in complex children matters and has represented a number of clients involved in protracted leave to remove disputes.
Natasha adopts a realistic and empathetic approach and works hard to ensure that her clients feel comfortable and reassured during what is often a very difficult and stressful period of their lives.
A bit more about Natasha…
-
2017 Trainee (ACILEx), Levison Meltzer Pigott
2020 Graduate Legal Executive (GCILEx), Levison Meltzer Pigott
2021 Chartered Legal Executive (FCILEx), Ribet Myles LLP
Reported cases
Marie-Therese Elisabeth Helene Hohenberg Bailey v Anthony John Bailey & Ors
[2022] EWFC 5
Natasha was part of the team acting for Princess Marie-Therese Hohenberg Bailey in a long-running dispute concerning the enforcement of financial orders made following divorce. Despite findings in the underlying financial remedy proceedings that the husband had been dishonest and had sought to frustrate the implementation of the court's orders, he continued to refuse to take steps required to enable the wife to receive her financial award. Following extensive enforcement proceedings, the Court found that the husband had acted in contempt of court and sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment. Two third parties who had assisted in obstructing the implementation of the orders were also found in contempt. The decision demonstrates the Family Court's willingness to take robust action where parties deliberately ignore court orders and seek to prevent the enforcement of financial awards. It highlights the extensive powers available to the court, including committal to prison, when faced with serious and persistent non-compliance.

